Breaking the Rules

'There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs'

Ansel Adams

This image has been featured in juried art festivals and won awards, despite following no discernible compositional rules. Its impact comes from arresting and unexpected subject matter, the use of striking color and texture, and the sinuous, curvilinear geometry of the shapes.

In a previous article, I discussed several so-called 'rules of composition'. Compositional rules, however, can be polarizing and divisive. Is this because as artists, we prize independence and don't like to, 'color in between the lines'? Or is it because we've all experienced disappointment when slavish application of the Golden Ratio still produces drab and lifeless images?

Certainly, great works of art have been produced throughout history that paid no heed to pre-determined compositional rules. You may ask then, if compelling art is not created by simply following rules, what's the point of learning the rules in the first place? That's a great question.

Now this is not going to be an article suggesting that all compositional rules are 'bad' or 'wrong'. Instead, what follows is a look at the rationale behind some established compositional rules. I'd argue that by understanding the intent behind a rule, we can subvert or break the rule to create drama or focus the viewer's attention in creative and novel ways. Let's begin with an example from another visual medium: drawing.

A story about eyes

Many years ago, my great-uncle - an accomplished painter and sculptor - was teaching me how to draw portraits. He suggested placing the eyes at the vertical midway point of the head. This 'rule' won't be surprising for anyone with a drawing background, but for many people, the idea that the eyes are halfway down the face is unintuitive - it seems too low!

I recently had a conversation with a friend who received the same advice from his father, despite the fact that he and I grew up in different countries. The fact that two artists from opposite sides of the planet were taught the same 'rule of eyes' points to one source of artistic rules: observations about the natural world.

The rough sketch on the left has eyes placed slightly above the midpoint of the face. It has the feel of having been drawn by a child. The image on the right was drawn with similar proportions and style but has eyes drawn at the midpoint of the face; a much different look.

In reality, are everybody's eyes exactly halfway down their face? No, but it's a good starting point that is visually pleasing and conforms to our expectations of illustrated portraits. In fact, a distinguishing feature of children's drawings of people is that the eyes are placed 'too high up' on the face.

This is a simple rule that helps us to draw a more realistic portrait. Just as importantly, however, understanding this rule allows us to make deliberate choices. We can draw a face with the eyes in the middle of the face for a natural look. We can instead place the eyes above the midway mark to give the drawing a more child-like quality. Or we can place the eyes below the midway mark to make the drawing look furtive or comical.

Making things concrete

Another reason I bring up this 'rule of eyes' as an example is because it offers a concrete, actionable guideline: place the eyes in the middle of the head. In photography we tend to be much more abstract in our instruction. Phrases like 'use your frame efficiently' or 'make asymmetrical compositions' may not mean much to a novice photographer.

Introducing a beginner to the rule of thirds though, for example, is an easy way to get them to start thinking about compositional space in a way that's immediately applicable, helping them to avoid mistakes and instead, focus on being creative.

Origins of rules

Where do artistic rules come from? Some are derived from observations and generalizations about the world around us. These observational rules may be common sense, such as shooting a level horizon, or non-intuitive, such as the rule of eyes I just discussed.

A second, more subtle category of what I'll call 'synthetic rules' come from the subjective values ascribed to qualities such as brightness, symmetry, balance and so forth. The rule of thirds fits in this category, where the use of thirds helps to create compositions with a pleasing balance between the main subjects. There's arguably nothing 'magical' about thirds, they just happen to be simple to visualize.

Artistic disobedience

I mentioned earlier that a great benefit to having rules lies in gaining the ability to break them for a more creative result. It's important to realize that any compositional rule is nothing more than a guideline. The guideline exists to communicate an abstract concept in a practical, concrete manner. So, one way to break a rule is to modify its concept. A deliberate tweak to an existing rule can help lead to creative results that are based on the same concept. Let's look at an example, modifying the rule of thirds guideline.

One objective of the rule of thirds is to avoid creating perfectly centered compositions. To achieve a similar result without following the rule by rote, why not experiment with different divisions of the frame? Break the image into fifths instead. Start with a thirds grid and then rotate it by 20 degrees. Or, try to think in circular rather than linear divisions.

The thirds grid is normally composed of horizontal and vertical lines. Imagine them as being rotated a few degrees in either direction instead. Doing so can help us to more easily envision compositions with subjects placed along a diagonal axis.

Modifications to a rule can lead to different and very creative results, while still retaining the rule's benefits. I like to think of this as the visual equivalent of a jazz performance; you start with a given harmony, melody and rhythm (the concept) and then build an improvisation on top of it (the modification).

Thank you! I'm certainly not an expert or authority on macro photography; I also mostly shoot people, which is going to be a different set of skills and challenges than object or insect macro photography.

Nose room - it is unfortunate, that there is that dark stripe , a corner or something, coming out of the models head. Itentionally? I do not think so. Breaking rules or not, this the photographer should have seen if not through the viewfinder then when sorting the pictures out.-

People here using the word 'rules' need to list them. And please, while you're at it, list just who it is that carved these 'rules' in stone and made them so immutable. I've been an artist for over 30 years, lectured in colleges, exhibited and sold work and I can assure you, there are no rules, just conventions.

Here is a test of the necessity of the "rules" for successful composition. Make a set of the 100 most revered paintings and photographs, and score the number of them that followed the "rules." I've tried this with a smaller set, and most of them did not conform to the rule of thirds, uncentered composition, golden rectangle, and the other touted "rules." So, even the word "convention" is an overstatement. Instead, it is clear that the artistry is not dependent on the overall geometry.

It is a bit like busines science - some people found out that a major part of well run businesses adhered to some financial figures such as turnover per employee etc. So some wise guy thought that they needed to turn it around - if you managed to get the key figures right you would have a well run and successful business - and hence the MBA and controlling was invented - Here ist is the same - a lot of impressive pictures seem to adherer to some compositional norms and hence some people think "Wow, if I fix my pictures to obey to these, they will be good" But that is rubish. A good picture may ore may not adhere to some rules of composition but the composition does not make a good picture.

With that said there is usually an exception to every composition rule. One must remember that composition rules are really guidelines.

The subject matter dictates how you frame it, not the other way around.

Take for instance the 'dead center rule'. At first glimpse; this may look like a hard and fast rule in composition but I have seen many examples where placing the subject in 'dead center' was the only way to achieve the desired result.

In the article above, the diagonal shift to the rule of thirds is an excellent example. If the rule of thirds was strictly followed on the vertical and horizontal planes, that photo would not work as well as it does.

The bottom line is this: Look at what you are taking a picture of and compose your image accordingly. If you just take the time to do this one simple thing it will improve your photography immensely.

- Special Edition Gold Plated cameras, with your name engraved on them make better pictures.- Being an active member of a very select Photo Club makes you a better photographer.- Great photographers do not brainstorm about Sony RX 100, Leica D-LUX 6 or Lumix LX 7. They buy them all.

and I said to myself: "You see? I told you" It is an idea I have been exploring for some years now, to keep on at working on photo shots that are going sheerly against the rule, the all mighty rule of thirds not less. This is a great article. More more, please, sweetie please?

These is great info; as an extension of the author's thoughts, the easiest way to get better as a photographer is to take a drawing class or two. Previsualization is the key to great photos and drawing is the best way to previsualize. Every town in the world has someone who teaches drawing and it's never very expensive. There's no excuse not to try it.

Or other random ideas or concepts. Doesn't have to be strictly about art or photography. The more ideas and concepts you have bouncing around your head while you're shooting, the more complex your images . . . IMHO.

Interesting article, I supposed with years of experience and try and learning, you automatically or indirectly use or not use those rules to make the pictures interesting. Speaking for myself I can say that I never crop a picture (digital or film), I try to use the format to its best. I prefer 3:2 than 4:3 its more like the Golden Ratio, check my blog :

Every picture in this article is following some compositional rule or another that I am aware of. Composition is more than just putting certain elements in certain fixed places on the frame. The subject(s) still need to be interesting, or there has to be interesting tension, etc. Some things are more objective than others.

I think a better thesis would be that there are many, many rules, some of them contradictory, and it's good to know all of them so you have some idea which ones to use in which situation, and which ones to acknowledge and then ignore.

Maybe rules isn't the right word for it, anyway. It's more like, this has worked for artists in the past. They give you a framework for understanding good images, in the hopes that we can find success as well. I think your best point in the whole article is the one about doing specific projects. I am routinely inspired to experiment with different compositional concepts as a basis for a specific project.

"I think a better thesis would be that there are many, many rules, some of them contradictory, and it's good to know all of them so you have some idea which ones to use in which situation, and which ones to acknowledge and then ignore."

It's best to understand all of the rules. Breaking the rules without a plan usually leads to a weaker image. Understanding what the rule seeks to avoid, then breaking the rule in specialized cases to deliberately cause the effect often strengthens an image. Breaking one rule solidly while following the others that apply is nearly always a stronger composition than breaking several rules at once. A few readers have noticed that the images in this article do follow several rules while breaking one. Each rule you break past the first multiplies the difficulty in creating a successful image. Break each rule because the rule breaking will change the viewer's perception of the image in a desired way.

Very good article. What is particularly interesting to me is that for the images which supposedly "break the rules", you analyse them with the aim of establishing why they work. Surely what you are doing is working out what the rules are which _were_ employed in that image?

Always surprised to notice how so many people actually believe there are no rules in composition, or they are subjective ore mere guidelines. For centuries, all the great artists have undergone long and exhausting studies and very hard work in order to learn those rules and create masterpieces. And this includes the modern masters such as Picasso, who undertook very serious learning of the rules in order to know when and why it would be legitimate not to respect them.

Photography is no different, however modern the medium might be.

And now you have a legion of hobbysts with minimum knowledge of art who claim that rules are not necessary.

I interpret this negation of the need for rules as a legitimation of people's ignorance. Nowadays everybody thinks he's a great writer without a proper knowledge of grammar rules, or a great musician without being able to tell a flat and a sharp apart. The same in photography.

Composition is nothing more than an intuitive response to a scene. It may be wrong to many, but it is a response with all the attendant baggage of the taker.I say, keep going. look. See. Respond. Guiding and sharing have been useful both as a student and as a pro. Follow your heart. Work to keep it open.csmiller@blogspot.com

@Wye PhotographyJohn Marcellus Huston was an American film director, screenwriter and actor. He wrote the screenplays for most of the 37 feature films he directed, many of which are today considered classics, including "The Treasure of Sierra Madre."

He wasn't The Bard, but I presume he's one up on say, Alfred Hawthorne Hill.

Among his many awards, the London Film Critics Circle Award for Best Director.

As more accurate pedantry, the banditos in Huston's film were speaking in Spanish dialect, where a double negative is a stronger negative, not a positive. In English we might reply to this rules nonsense in a double positive: "Yeah, right."

The so called rules in photography are there as a guide and nothing more. Sometimes I use them, sometimes I don't. As for learning composition, I'm not sure it is possible to truly learn it, you either have the eye for it or you don't. That being said there are lots of pro's who I don't believe have a natural sense of composition or what looks good, they have excellent technique and make up for lack of innate talent through dedicated following of rules or breaking them. The truly great photographers, instinctively know when a shot is great, us mere mortals, take a shot and hope our talent was enough to get the shot we imagined we were taking.

There are no rules in Photography except when as a beginner you submit a photograph to a magazine, then the editors and experts pick it to pieces and tell you all about the rules you have broken. Oh well turn over the page and look at an image taken by a Pro that has broken all the same rules but the editors love it.Me? Chip on my shoulder? It just won't go and has been there for 30 odd years and grew from reading too many copies of AP back in the 70' and 80's.

This is one of the best articles about photography I have ever read. It both acknowledges the reasons for learning compositional rules and the necessity for experiments and rulebreaking, in a very compact and down to earth text. This is a must-read for anyone who really wishes to learn about composition.

In the time of the Great Painting Masters like Vermeer, Velazquez, Rembrandt, Rubens, etc. there were rules, rules, rules. You studied with the greats to learn these rules and hope that someday your painting would end up in the saloons. Some of them were centered around painting realistically while others were centered around symbolism, etc.

Funny enough, it was probably the invention of the camera that really shook this up and got artists like Monet, Manet, Picasso, Braque, Cezanne, Seurat, etc to walk away from the saloons and the established art world with its rules to create new ways of painting and creating art.

After all, once a camera was able to record realistic images, why did you have to paint realistically. [I don't agree with that, but that's probably the question that was the seed for Impressionism, Expressionism, Cubism, etc.]

So, its good to be aware and have a foundation in the "rules". Partly to know what has come before. And also to know when you're breaking away.

i would definitely say people should learn these rules similar to how they learn art history. You can then use that as a base to build upon and when the time is right in your development, naturally you will find yourself favouring the idea first with the execution working towards the idea. It may or may not follow the rules but it will work - and when you see it doesn't follow the rules, you won't automatically discard it in favour of the less effective (but conformist) piece.

You either have an intuitition for it or you have the experience and perspective to see rules for what they are- there to be broken and bent when the time comes that it no longer works for what you need.

Composition based on rules are fine if you know that you don't have an artist's eye and want to produce a reasonably nice photograph. But I totally agree with Ansel Adams. Artists don't need no stinking rules!

For a man who thought rules are not needed, he created a whole system of rules for correctly exposing a picture. Plus, in my opinion, his compositions were always very much orthodox -he actually followed rules.

Excellently written and not a second too soon. Many new photographers will surely accelerate their advancement if they spend some time following these suggestions. It takes lots of knowlege to be able to write simply about it. Congratulations, Thomas!

Obviously the "rules" have some inherent psychological basis in explaining aesthetic appeal. However, to see their horribly destructive short-comings, try using these "rules" to judge classic paintings and photographs: "We're sorry Mr. da Vinci, but your centered compositions are amateurish. And Ms. Lange, Dust-Bowl Dotty, whatever your name is, your subject, sans make-up, is smack-dab in the middle of the frame--you need to familiarize yourself with the rules of composition. On to you, Mr. Adams: you wasted all of those huge negatives and darkroom efforts on snapshots that ignore the aesthetic beauty of compositional basics. You should have placed that waterfall on one of the 3rds intersections. And, saving the worst for last, Mr. Weston! My God! That bell pepper is dead center in the frame. And that woman, is that her driver's license? Not only is that Mexican looking out of the frame, you chopped off part his hair! What did he say? 'We don need no steenking rules'? "

i remember a blog I read where they placed established masters' work on forums & waited for the comments. It was hilarious. I distinctly remember a photo of a model with her eyes closed head tilted up and back facing away from the camera...

A commentor stated quite surely that he liked the photo but the problem was the model wasn't looking into the camera... you know, because there are writing out there that distinctly state that to have an interesting human subject, they must be looking at the camera, or you must see the eyes... people read these "rules" & take it to heart because that's how they learned.

Rule books are bland instructions for bland minds to produce bland photographs. Or people who want to enter the commercial world with speed.

It is instant experience for novices who have no experience. Form however, is only valuable and worth your glance if born out of a necessity to communicate something. That is art. Not some contrived fake poetry.

A pilot needs a rule book because we need pilots, hundreds of them really urgently. Same goes with brain surgeons. Rule book surgeons and plumbers are acceptable too, but I am not so sure about rule book artists.

Thanks for the article and interesting pointers. I have some doubts about the value of the overall approach. Making/breaking a given "rule" doesn't make much sense when all the others dictated by good post-processing are scrupulously adhered to. It's a bit like saying Formula 1 drivers "break" speed limits...

Putting a frame around something seen is a rule. Recording light, or lack of it, is a rule.

There are more contrived rules; we are bombarded with design every day, and most of it exists in a rectangle - print, computer screens, theaters, etc.

Most of those designs follow well defined rules from antiquity. "All that exists shall fit on a grid. All typeface shall be Helvetica. Etc."

People who break those rules sometimes succeed, sometimes fail. Sometimes it's interesting, sometimes not. Often it's interesting only for a time.

Woody Allen's cinematographer used a widescreen framing effect to an extreme. Interesting at first, and later boring. HDR is an effect. It was interesting for a while.

Basic rules exist, much like gravity, and those impose pretty much a universal environment. Contrived rules about what goes on within those light and dark and color frames - those can be and should be broken to further the art.

Starting October 1st, Getty Images will no longer accept images in which the models have been Photoshopped to "look thinner or larger." The change was made due to a French law that requires disclosure of such images.

A court ruling our of Newton, Massachusetts has set an important legal precedent for drone pilots: federal drone laws will now trump local drone regulations in situations where the two are in conflict.

macOS High Sierra came out today, but if you use a Wacom tablet you need to wait a few weeks before you upgrade. According to Wacom, they won't have a compatible driver ready for you until "late October."

Vitec, the company that owns popular accessory maker Manfrotto, has just acquired JOBY and Lowepro for a cool $10.3 million in cash. The acquisition adds JOBY and Lowepro to Vitec's already sizable collection of camera gear brands.

A veteran photojournalist, Rick Wilking secured a spot in the path of totality for the August solar eclipse. While things didn't quite pan out as predicted, an unexpected subject in the sky and a quick reaction made for a once-in-a-lifetime shot.